Conservative Night at the Movies

Not generally considered your typical source for Showbiz news, the current Weekly Standard cover article is surprisingly a perfect fit. A ripped-from-the-headlines, behind-the-scenes exclusive of an upcoming film all about "anti-Americanism."

The Taliban, perhaps? Al Qaeda? The Axis of Evil? No, no, we're talking real anti-Americanism. And you know that can only mean one thing.

Liberals.

Yes, liberals. You know, those anti-Americans who brought us Social Security, Medicare, the Civil Rights Act, child labor laws, the 40-hour work week. "Anti-American" stuff like that.

The movie, An American Carol, is a parody of liberals starring Kelsey Grammer and James Woods, directed and co-written by David Zucker, who made "The Naked Gun" movies and Airplane!, among others. Talented people all. I've worked with David Zucker on four films -- and he's a wonderful person. Decent, gracious and genial. I've worked briefly on two movies that James Woods starred in, and he's a seriously bright guy, a political science major from M.I.T.

The movie's plot concerns liberal opposition to the Iraq war and how an anti-American, left-wing filmmaker, 'Michael Malone,' (get it?!) is unwittingly recruited by terrorists. According to the article, there are digs at all manner of liberals throughout the movie.

Liberals are a goldmine for humor. If done wonderfully, it could be hilarious. Unfortunately, the very premise of the movie presents a pesky problem -

It's not liberals who oppose the Iraq War. It's - Americans. CNN polls show opposition to the Iraq War to be 66%-33%. A Time poll goes further: 58% believe America was wrong to even go into Iraq in the first place, compared to just 35%.

Worse, a quarter of conservative Republicans favor a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq (!), according to the Gallup Poll.

The overriding problem is that myopically suggesting that being against the Iraq War is "anti-American" is a spit-in-the-face to the two-thirds of Americans who understand why they are against it.

Ultimately, such false presumptions are the problem that flows throughout the article.

The title certainly has attention-getting bravado, "Hollywood Takes On the Left." Alas, like most posturing, it becomes defensive - awkwardly playing the victim with unsupportable platitudes.

"No one on the left wants to admit that radical Islamists want to kill Americans," states the film's Robert Davi, perhaps best-known as the villain in "License to Kill." While this sounds tough-talking, in reality it would be stunning if Mr. Davi can name even a dozen people who actually think this. C'mon, 12 people shouldn't be so hard -- he says that "no one" does. From tens of millions, 12 is a piece of cake.

Certainly this is bombast, but that's no substitute for accuracy. Moreover, it's bombast of the worst kind: a deliberately-misleading fabrication to demonize. This is not acceptable at any time. It is most especially not acceptable, however, when hoping to offer serious political comment.

Certainly, political differences are fair game. But as Daniel Moynihan stated: "You are entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts." What's problematic in the article is the reckless use of such unsupported opinions as facts.

For example, the article notes, "Zucker says that one of the major differences between the left and the right in America today is that leftists think of their political opponents as evil."

Such simplicity may sound comforting to those who need to believe, but they contradict the very premise of this movie, that liberals supposedly don't see others as evil and threats. More importantly, however, it conveniently ignores that it was the right which coined and embraced the phrase -- The Axis of Evil.

Admirably, those interviewed are passionate in their beliefs. The author notes a wide range of political topics vigorously discussed among cast and crews. By comparison, on most movie sets, conversations tend to center on meal penalty, women and overtime.

Unfortunately, the only substantive comment quoted is yet another complaint, that "the rich in this country are being criminalized." Though passionate, this may not be the issue they hope to resonate through most of America.

(We do learn, though, that Robert Davi "can't stand Keith Olbermann. Jesus Christ, I want to slap that guy." Explaining where Olbermann is wrong, using specifics, would seem more meaningful and adult. But I don't know, that's just me.)

Bombast, of course, exists on both sides, as when Kelsey Grammer's staffers one day referred to Ann Coulter as the antichrist. For some reason, however, Mr. Grammer felt his reply -- "What the f-- do you know about the antichrist? You don't even believe in Christ" -- was a snappy, pointed comeback. Certainly there exists a thoughtful, specific response to his staff. But "You don't even believe in Christ" is not it.

That empty sense of specifics permeates the entire article. Worse is the persecuted claim that Hollywood is in a "new McCarthy era." It's a seemingly pointed comment, but one so profoundly misguided that it speaks louder about those making the charge, than the charge itself.

Hollywood has always shown an openhearted greediness to work with anyone who will make it money. Tim Allen, Robert Downey Jr., and Keifer Sutherland all went to prison. They didn't get ostracized by Hollywood, they got deals. If audiences want to see you, Hollywood will hire you.

The suggestion that studios only hire liberals relies on believing that these international mega-corporations are bastions of liberalism. You know, companies like General Electric, Time-Warner, Sony, Disney, and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.

The filmmakers making this faux-charges of McCarthyism know all this. They're long-time professionals.

To imply that Hollywood is in a "new McCarthy era" is a lie that suggests Kelsey Grammer (the highest-paid actor in TV history) and James Woods don't have remarkable careers. Or that Robert Davi hasn't had a 30-year career with five upcoming movies. It suggests that being conservative has blocked Tom Selleck, Bruce Willis, Clint Eastwood, Drew Carey, Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone, Robert Duvall, Dennis Hopper, Sarah Michelle Geller, Fred Thompson, Patricia Heaton and Mel Gibson.

(Okay, so Mel Gibson's career was hurt. But in fairness that was because he had a drunken, anti-Semitic, sexist rant.)

But most insidious about suggesting a "new McCarthy era" is its contended ignorance, and its attempt to co-opt reality and mislead others.

When people talk about "The Blacklist" of the actual McCarthy era -- it was a real list. Called "Red Channels."

People had to testify before Congress under oath about their private beliefs. They were pressured to inform on friends.

Or risk work.

People were put in federal prison for their beliefs. And those beliefs were liberal.

Suggesting a "new McCarthy era" is an ignorant misunderstanding and deception of what McCarthyism truly was. It's a fake persecution complex. McCarthyism wasn't "some people scorn me." It was putting Americans in jail.

I'm sorry that conservatives feel guilty about McCarthyism and putting liberals in jail, but the appropriate response is to apologize, not to try to diminish its horror by co-opting reality and making themselves a fake-victim.

Hollywood makes movies that it thinks the audience wants to see. Period. Hollywood made "Baby Geniuses 2" because they thought there was an audience for it. Hollywood hires people it thinks audiences want to see. And anyone who tries to suggest otherwise is fooling themselves. And you.

Among the unending complaining in the article, what's generally missing is what they are for. Further, not one word in support of George Bush. On anything. But then, with only 29% of Americans supporting the president, they're not alone.

As I said, I like David Zucker very much. We weren't social and haven't crossed paths in a few years, but he has always been a joy of a person. He's open and supportive, profoundly decent and warm-hearted. Even when we disagreed on politics, or debated the ACLU, it was always gracious. Though his political outlook seriously-changed long before 9/11 that the author states, David was and is a good guy. And a wonderful filmmaker. If we're lucky, one day we'll all get to see his version of Davy Crockett - it's a brilliant screenplay.

The point here is not differences - fair men can always disagree fairly. Political discourse, like competition, drives and invigorates America.

At issue is the article. A piece that, among its relentless lamentations, suggests the film is "an extended rebuttal to the vacuous antiwar slogan that 'War Is Not the Answer.'"

That sounds pithy. But it's a straw man. Criticism of the Iraq War has never been that "War is not the answer." Criticism is vast, varied and deep, but basically centers around what Ron Suskind has just written and no less than The American Conservative magazine has confirmed - that Dick Cheney's office pressured the CIA to forge a document linking Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda and falsely linking him to efforts to get yellowcake uranium, to justify going to war.

That's the criticism.

You have to admit - as far as criticisms go, it's a pretty good one.

All criticism has to begin with facts. Not empty platitudes. Because when you start with a leaky premise, you end up with an empty bucket.

You end up with an Administration putting America $482 billion in debt, creating a housing crisis, destroying the economy, ignoring global warming, prohibiting full stem cell research and entrenching America in a disastrous 5-year war costing 4,136 American dead, and $600 billion - that only 29% of Americans support.

Looking at it all from their self-persecuted corner are those few: happy to lob empty, unsupportable grenades - and then wondering plaintively, as the article quotes, "Shouldn't I be allowed to say that?"

Sure, you should! And if anyone complains, don't worry -

The ACLU will defend you.

Comments

[Goodmom08]

David Zucker is my new favorite Hollywood guy. I can't wait to see this movie. Mr. Elisberg, surely you jest--sorry for calling you Shirley--that you don't understand the premise that liberals vilify CONSERVATIVES as evil, but conservatives do not vilify liberals as evil. Conservatives view our country's enemy as Islamo-fascist terrorists who wish us dead, but liberals view our country's enemy as Republican Conservatives. I have no trouble understanding the premise of the film, and I'm positive I'm nowhere near as smart as you are.

[Lexx-2]

As an Australian who considers himself fairly left-leaning, this is all very interesting. I feel very passionate about my politics and admittedly, I find it hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction to conservative views. I have trouble believing that there is an active campaign against conservatives in the film industry. As someone who's worked in the arts, I think its more a cultural thing. The arts tend to attract more left-leaning people than right. The opposite could be just as easily said of commerce and banking.

Fantical lefties are just as infuriating to me as fanatical right-wingers. I just feel that Zucker may have missed the mark in going to the old saw that liberal Americans - especially Moore - "hate" their country.

Moore certainly has his flaws, as do elements of leftism but satire always works best when there's a kernel of truth, and I just don't see that in what I've seen so far.

What I would really love to see is a rational discourse between both sides. Sure, it's fun to rag on the opposition at times, but what is achieving? More blind anger on both sides.

I'll probably see An American Carol and try to come at it with an open mind. I'd genuinely interested to hear some serious discourse from many of the folk involved with it as well.

And kudos to Mr Davi for his contribution. I've always enjoyed your work and would like to hear more on your views.

[MVPOnline]

" Though his political outlook seriously-changed long before 9/11 that the author states, David was and is a good guy. "

Mr. Elisberg, I have to ask, is this statement actually true?

I thought Alberto Gonzales was a decent guy, even though I opposed him becoming Attorney General because I thought he 1) couldn't do the job, and 2) would basically follow whatever Bush told him to do. But since his resignation, I've found myself asking myself, given all the things he presided over (US Attorney General scandal, torture sign offs, etc), I've returned to my original comments that he's either incredibly incompetent, very capable of suspending his own judgement in order to follow someone else's orders, or both.

Except now, given all that's happened, I don't see anything good about Alberto Gonzales at all. Why would a good person do such terrible things over and over, and allow them to happen under his watch?

I think it's a similar case with Mr. Zucker. I seriously questioned this guy's motives watching all the anti-Arab slants in that first Naked Gun movie.

And I question your statement - is he really a good person, that he could attach his name to such garbage like this movie?

[Robert J. Elisberg - Huffpost Blogger]

Normally I wouldn't answer, but I don't want any aspersions left in the air. So -- yes. David Zucker is really a good guy. Just to clarify, the first "Naked Gun" movie made fun of -- pretty much everybody. So did the second "Naked Gun" movie. And the third. My observation from having worked on two of them is that people (understandably) see what bothers them...but being bothered, they stop there and rarely step back and see the perspective that *everthing* is being satired. I can't defend what upset you, nor would I. If something bothers a person, they're bothered. Whether that's fair in a larger picture is another matter. I can speak to their goal in these satires to make fun of everything, and in doing so be fair in their spoofing of everyone. It's personal choice whether they succeeded.

But to put this is a different perspective -- after wring my blunt, critical HuffPost the other day, I got a phone call from David. He thought the piece was very fair and wanted to get together for lunch. So, again, yes, David Zucker is a seriously good guy.

[Goodmom08]

That's so wonderful to hear. Yay Mr. Elisberg and Mr. Zucker. May your positive example of respect and friendship despite ideological and political differences inspire the rest of this country, which seems depressingly mired in hatred and fighting. (Especially on this site.)

[walk0nwalls]

They want to turn a fake victim complex into a real victim complex? Show them to me, I'll tear them down by their ankles and feed them to the dogs.

[soundbites]

Dear Mr. Elisberg, I am Robert Davi. Just to set the record straight, the conversation I had with the gentleman who came to the set of American Carol was much more extensive then what has now been reduced to a couple of soundbites. I am Shocked that you being in the business and knowing this is sometimes the case, did not mention it as a possibility. Would'nt that have been "FAIR" on your part. As regards to my comment about Mr. Olbermann , I discussed WHY I feel the way I do extensively at the time. I love OUR COUNTRY ,as I am sure you do and respect everyones point of view even when I vehemently disagree. Your comments are a kind of blacklisting. The bigger names who you seem to know, got a kind of a pass from you while you do NOT give me the benefit of doubt. Is this "FAIR"?. I am very easy to reach ,you could have easily reached out to me ,had you wanted to be "FAIR". Instead, you assume my comments were empty "bombast". I assure you this is not the case.

[Robert J. Elisberg - Huffpost Blogger]

Dear Mr. Davi: Thank you for your comments. Clearly, most readers understand that interviews are more extensive than what"s quoted. I was only addressing what"s on the record. That said, considering how I repeatedly wrote what a wonderful person David Zucker is (and talented) and how smart I think James Woods is " the two I"m acquainted with " most people will grasp how "FAIR" I was. However, to suggest "a kind of blacklisting" reinforces my point about the deceptive McCarthyism charge. The real "blacklist" was a real list. And kept people from working. Your charge is I didn"t name enough successful people! (The "bigger names" were simply from a conservative website.) As for you personally " I specifically mentioned what a long, impressive career you have. (Indeed, you"re a terrific actor.) I"m at a loss what you"re complaining about.

I could have contacted others " but I was writing a commentary, a reaction. I believe you are confusing disagreement with unfairness. To be clear, I wasn"t assuming your comments were empty bombast. You say, "No one on the left wants to admit that radical Islamists want to kill Americans" " I"m sorry, but that"s the definition of empty bombast. But to be "FAIR," I note the serious discussions on the set. I"m sure many were substantive. However, I can only address what the article thought was most noteworthy. If you feel the Weekly Standard misrepresented you all, then your complaint should be with them. Robert Elisberg

[soundbites]

Dear Mr. Elisberg, I thank you for your swift reply. Someday if we meet I will share with you fully the reasons for my comments .Space does not permit a long discourse nor(more importantly) does it lend itself to our being able to have a discussion over both our positions. I can say I would never just make an assumption. I agree the "no one "was an unfair exaggeration; better to have said " Some" or " Many" ;;;;I can tell you I have had numerous conversations that led to my statement. Have you heard of "Loose Change " ?. Also, as for "blacklist ", that is another discussion that will , perhaps disturb you. I do agree , that the gentleman who wrote the article, not the publication itself could have framed it in a way that represented what took place a lot better. God Bless, Robert Davi

[MajorKong]

"No one on the left wants to admit that radical Islamists want to kill Americans," states the film's Robert Davi

Mr. Davi,

That statement has very little to do with Iraq. Iraq was one of the more western and secular Middle Eastern countries. We propped up the Baathist government in the 1980s because we saw them as a bulwark AGAINST radical Islamists.

After 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld actually wanted to attack Iraq instead of Afghanistan "because we have good targets in Iraq, we don't have good targets in Afghanistan". That's kind of like the guy searching for his lost car keys on the other side of the street "because the light's better over here".

One joke that went around the Pentagon in 2001 was "If Saddam didn't do 9/11 he's going to wish he had because we're going to take him out anyway".

I'd be more than happy to discuss Iraqi military capability, or mostly the lack thereof in 2003.

Lt. Colonel, USAF (Retired)
Desert Shield/Desert Storm, Joint Forge, ONW, OIF

[soundbites]

Dear Lt. Colonel, First , God Bless you and Thank You for your service to Our Country. i understand . I have many friends in the Armed Forces in very high ranks ,some have written books ,some are retired ,some still very active . I have had extensive discussions on both sides of the equation. But I ask you this , What did the Iraqi Flag look like in 1991 before the first World Trade Center bombing and what was it changed to in 1993 after the bombing?

[BlackJAC]

Probably not the Robert Davi in question, though. I had a friend in elementary school named Bryan Adams. I've got the same name as a former defensive player for the Miami Dolphins.

[Bettysdad]

I did some head shots of Robert Davi in the '70s before he moved to L.A. from Long Island.

He never paid me.

Typical Republican.

[soundbites]

I was apolitical at the time. In either case , I apologise.

[GWBushIsANitwit]

I've read that this "comedy" uses the ashes of the 3000 victims of 9/11 as a prop.

Conservatives have revealed that they, at long last, have no decency.

[Jodi Lampert - Huffpost Blogger]

As always, a beautiful and eloquent sum-up of this Administration.

I find it fascinating in the 'money is king' land that is Hollywood -- even so -- that Mel Gibson still gets work. As one of the pundits said quite simply when he was arrested, "You know, when I get drunk, I just tell my friends I love them."

(Do you ever sleep)?

Jodi

[BlackJAC]

That's because Hollywood's not the Real World. It's an industry where you can have power meetings with high-ranking executives in $3000 business suits while you're wearing just a T-shirt and jeans, and the only way to become unemployable is to be such an extreme-to-the-ninth-power jerk that nobody wants to spend any amount of time with you.

[BlackJAC]

They tried this before with TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE. It made exactly $32 million on a $30 million budget. Apparently the Marketplace Of Ideas has shot down anything that paints Hollywood as a terrorist front industry.

[JaneaneTheAcerbicGoblin]

Team America was awful and the puppets were creepy.

[CynAnne]

An excellent article, Mr. Elisberg! And having just watched "Licence to Kill" yesterday (part of SpikeTVs "Breakfast with Bond' month), I will now enjoy anew the image of Robert Davi (as "Sanchez") in flames, screaming..that's as close as he'll ever get to being as 'hot' as Keith Olbermann (apparently,the TRUTH perturbs Davi more than the rampant corruption of Bu$hCo)..! ;) ...

[soundbites]

Dear CynAnne, Please read my comment to Mr.Elisberg above. It may not change your mind about your enjoyment of me going up in flames but my thinking and points of view are much more complex then what is being grossly misrepresented.

[CynAnne]

Thank you for responding to my comment, Mr. Davi..I did read your response, and Mr. Elisbergs response to your response, as well. And while I appreciate both sides of this discussion/debate, the FACT is that in the last eight years, there have been outright lies, venal corruption and shameless profiteering under the 'leadership' currently occupying the White House, and anyone who cannot see that is deluding only themselves..the rest of us await November of this year, for a change in the downward spiral this..'administration' has plunged us into headfirst, while they profit obscenely amidst the suffering..